Hypothetical acceptability of minimally invasive tissue sampling and considerations for practice: A qualitative study in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exact aetiology of the cause of death (COD) remains unknown for a high proportion of deaths caused by infectious diseases. Complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA) is considered the gold standard to determine COD, but it is often not used in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), including Vietnam, for a variety of reasons. One alternative is minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS). This study was part of a larger project to explore the perceptions of MITS in Vietnam to provide recommendations for its potential implementation. We collected in-depth interviews and focus group discussions that explored MITS acceptability from 96 participants, including key informants, healthcare workers, community stakeholders, and people who had family members pass away recently. Participants highlighted the minimally invasive nature as the most considerable strength of MITS that could make it acceptable in Vietnam compared with CDA. However, participants still had concerns including the accuracy of the technique, the potential damage on the body, and the potential conflicts MITS results could have with original clinical diagnoses. Overall, the hypothetical acceptability of MITS was not clear-cut. It is imperative to consider acceptability before implementing new medical procedures into a given context, especially when it revolves around death, dying and the body.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".